Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 12, 2013 1:00am-1:31am PDT

1:00 am
respect for the puc and wanting to make sure we're or in the same page. that hadn't been done. we're still in conversations with the puc. we haven't seen the agreement yet but in that particularly course our engineers and the pucs engineers will be agreeing on the safest method to do this >> so you're saying you're not able to do the final analysis until the permit is done? we're in the process of doing that >> it strikes me as a little
1:01 am
bit backwards it seems that a third of our pipes that dumps 20 millions gallons everyday i believe you are saying we won't know that until the permit is done, i.e., the city can't say no. >> you were asking in the hearing mr. kelly head of the penal code was asked to convert to the commission when the consensus was being reached. >> i wasn't at the puc hearing but again, i guess my point is your essential saying you're not
1:02 am
going to be done until the permit? >> let me say it again, we're going to conclude this study before the puc agreements are fully adopted before they to go the board of supervisors for principle of law long before we are asking for a permit. >> got you when is that? >> it's a process with the puc a couple months 3 months. >> so june, july around august? >> yes. >> thank you. i have is a couple other questions >> maybe the engineer for the puc. i do have a >> turn on my microphone here.
1:03 am
>> know there are things you can't really make up and it's fully hard to make this up but it's amazing to see this happening. the two words i want to say but i'll say two different set of words holly cow. this is quite quite something. to the first question i have for you is have we ever had any major construction project that has happened so close to such a large sewer pipe before? >> we've had many internal to the puc major facilities enter seconding and implicated
1:04 am
analysis required. this is actually, the technical details on that particular project their relatively simply like consultants involved. we don't typically handle this expertise in the house it doesn't happen everyday in other words >> have we had any major sewer pipe burst in the past? >> well, we saw the pictures of the sinkholes. we're actually working on the project right now to address, you know, a break in this particular force main we're talking about. we're realigning the pipes and running a redundant line. >> what was the largest pipe we
1:05 am
had break? >> the pressures that we operate are a lot less than the waterside but we've had failures in our 66 inch force main that runs to the south land. >> one of the pictures showed a pipe how long did it take the quickest to fix the pipes person talking about earlier? >> are we talking about the single holes in. >> was the figure 4 hours which pipe was that? >> again those are water mains they could be 4, 8, 12 size within four hours we can fix those. >> is there a difference
1:06 am
between those water pipes. >> yes, their gravity fed so you can imagination the pipe is not fully filled it's just what's within the pipe at the time. that's what i'm saying in sewer pipes we can dam them and go around the place where the pipe was broken >> so this is 36 inches? >> and how does this compare to the pipe that took hours to fix? >> tyler's 8 to 12 inches. >> so this is a few times larger? >> it's not a linear scale to fix this pipe to water mains and so earlier, you said that this
1:07 am
pipe carries about 20 miles of gallons of sewer so that's 24 hours that's about 3 hundred and 33 thousand an hour? >> it varies not guilty and day during the night it's low through but higher in the daytime. >> but during the day it could carry more than a million gladdens of waste her hour? >> that's correct. >> so let's say it took four hours to fix something like this we're talking about more than 4 million gallons of waste?
1:08 am
>> hopefully within the first hour or less our crews have responded and placed into a way to pass around the pipes and then pump around the damaged area so we might have a little leakage in the streets but hopefully, we'll be quick. >> what is quickly? >> i say quickly because you're a lawyer and i'm not so, i say quickly. >> no, i appreciate that i think that's funny. so one of the things i'm trying to understand is that why are we talking about this months after this project went through the
1:09 am
approval? i mean, i would imagine as a general rule you're talking about something as sensitive as this pipe you need in your report $0.31 it's not a redundant pipe you noted in our report that do you have something to say as to why we're here months after the approval happened? part of this say we have been working with the developer and a long period of time is before july 2012. we're looking at our protecting our infrastructure and pilot our mission which is to verify the
1:10 am
water and public power. we work with developers when they're ready to work with us. so we - this developer came in about two years ago do we have a complete answer at this time? no, but we're a lot closer. we put into safeguards whether it's the lot 337 or the developer like mission bay we worked with for years great addressing the same kind of issues where are you encroaching against argue infrastructure and again, we have the same kind of seismic shaking issues. >> so on the board of
1:11 am
supervisors were you in discussions with the developer at that time? >> giving me the timeframe? >> did you have discussion with any members of the board of supervisors at the time? and i don't recall. >> did it recall the puc to have a discussion with the board of supervisors? >> at this point it was going through the planning process and we were incriminating on their documents and making sure our concerns wore going to be addressed i think you were dealing with it at that time. >> were you aware at that time, and did it occur to anyone at the puc that perhaps as the
1:12 am
board of supervisors is deliberating we should let the city know we were there. >> again, it was the sequa process that was being addressed. >> so you told the planning department and you thought they would tell you or what? >> we're trying to be part of the city family and the city was in the lead on it. >> well, i do think when people talk about the city family is the board of supervisors included in the city family? and yes. >> don't you think we should have been told about this issue? >> yes. >> and do you know if that happened? and do you think that the puc should have said manage to the board of supervisors?
1:13 am
>> yes, we know a lot more today then we did 18 months of 24 months ago. >> do you think the planning department should have said something to the board of supervisors? >> i know they're here. >> and i'll turn it over i have a couple of - >> oh, supervisors and take the question first of all. when the board of supervisors was deliberating on this issue was the planning aware of this? >> i don't believe we were aware of this issue until the ordinance was delivered to us
1:14 am
for environmental review and the ordinance is originally dated 1219, 2012 so and there was a letter from simon to i believe - it was around november 29, 2012. >> so the puc doesn't inform planning of this issue before that time. >> we were not aware of the north forest main being there. >> now two questions if you had been aware you think that information would have will be relevant inform the board of supervisors information? >> yes. >> so the question is how is it that we have a major project
1:15 am
that complicates one of the most important sewer pipes in this city and the planning department doesn't know about it as the board is deliberating on whether or not to approve the project. >> my understanding and what i wrote in the addendum is further surveys made the easements clear and that with her doing the eir we weren't, you know, aware of the proximity of the building that might encroach on the easements. >> they never told you? >> paul with the planning department staff. at the time that thought eir was coming to the board for a
1:16 am
finaltion and certification it talked about the north shore force main project by at that time the distanc soon to be a little greater i don't have the exact number but it was a greater distance of separation between the building footprints and that was our knowledge at the time of the eir and that information was in the final eir that was subsequent to the eir that we were made be sure that the building would be built closer to the north shore force main theen what the eir stated and we perpetrated the addendum and analyzed that. and who made you aware of that
1:17 am
at that point? >> what the it puc? >> i believe it was through the consultant team we were working with. you know, i'd have to reconstruct it i i mention the developer in talking with the puc then began royal this had some sequa implications >> do you think the puc told you earlier to how close it was going to be built. >> when you said we we had a certain number in our mind i don't know if we were informed if there was a gap in time when
1:18 am
they realized the change in proximity. >> i think we can go owning i'll defer to president chiu for the supervisor of the district. there's a little bit of fingerpointing going on from one department to another the sad thing is the board certainly didn't know the severity of the issue >> it was my understanding that the planning department was not aware of the contents of this report i was told the date of the report was issued two days before the date of everyer. >> planning department. the addendum has a date on the cover of february 20th it was signed by bill and it was
1:19 am
distributed on february 26th. each cover memo had the date of february 2, '67 when it was delivered to the board and the rest of the mailing list. sarah jones started getting phone call and overwhelms from justin true and - let me see when the puc hearing was on or about march 11th the day before the puc hearing. 60's us -- >> by the way, i work with her. >> we asked what she was referring to and on the evening
1:20 am
of march 11th he finally e-mailed this to us. >> i'm sorry what evening? march 11th >> i'm sorry what's the document in our hand? >> the document that i had was a document that was finalized. >> february 22nd. in other words this document was put out when you were about to do the addendum >> it looks like it came out about 4 days before i issued it. >> here's my fundamental question our your environmental addendum report says there's no new information that shows that
1:21 am
the modified project would cause environmental impacts that weren't already impacted do you have a different opinion today? >> not necessarily we have references before the engineering report were here this is the type of information that were done before the review the d b i is the agency that handles this sort of thing. we do have detailed jerry we don't have any engineering expertise and so because you didn't have engineering expertise you don't have to put or consider this information >> reevaluate our environmental
1:22 am
impact report? >> this report would have been documented in our addendum if we had had it. >> because you don't have the expertise on staff to understand it. >> no, because this is the thing that is part of the design details we don't know what the engineering is going to be. the report is rementd other >> why did you push out the eir addendum when i did given this report was suggesting there was additional studies to be done. >> we didn't know this report was being pled.
1:23 am
>> i'm sorry you said days before points addendum was signed there was no implication? >> this report has a date of february 22nd. it was signed on february 25th and it was issued on february 26th. your aid made me aware of it on march 11th. even though it was sent to your office >> on march 11th. >> your made made us aware of this on the 11. >> so no one on the puc made you aware of this addendum? >> that's correct. >> you mentioned d d i. what's d d i's role here
1:24 am
>> someone else might have to explain this to you but it's my impression that once the building permit is issued then there are subsequent pseudonyms and drawings are are submit structural engineering. >> so you're saying it's d d i's fault? >> the is he what process is at the front end and for any project this project or any other project at the time we're doing our sequa analysis we have april geotechnical information that will tell us whether or not the project can be built safely and what kinds of requirement so
1:25 am
we can do so we can be certain that the building can be built based on preliminary analysis but that's based on preliminary geotechnical information. where the final engineering or design comes after project approval. it's not until a building is finally approved and someone knows what the final building is going to look like then it becomes the right to do the final grow technical and design reports and produce that information as part of the building permit process. the building department
1:26 am
final authority and responsibility for deciding and determining what the structural requirement are the geotechnical requirements at the this site and that's part of the building process after the sequa gets involved. we had many geotechnical reports but the final engineering is reviewed by the and approved by the building department. they don't issue permits until they look at the structural safety as well as the protection of jaint structures and infrastructures. i have a couple questions first of all, this is a sewer report
1:27 am
and there's a discrepancy and we get a lot of things going on and so really my question is this is important information your founding the impacts of the sewer asset how do we move forward now that we know that what is this the power - >> north forest. >> the north forest what? >> main. can be in jeopardy how do we begin to move forward i don't want to know which department
1:28 am
knew and didn't know but just to ton or continue to move forward it's 20 minutes before 2 o'clock and i've been here since 10. my question is to mr. president, you know what else are rehe looking to get from this hearing today? >> i did not have faith in the departments involved there's been a adequate research here i appreciate the fact that you've been here for a while and i intend to substitute might have to sit as a committee here but it's important for us to understand those risks to the public and to the agencies they
1:29 am
have some work to do the puc the planning department, the d b i has a lot of work to do i don't want to be the district supervisor who repeals my constituents of what could be a massive sdraufr that being said i have some follow-up questions i'm happy to deter them who know what when. i think there was information that people should have disclosed and i think there were many city staffers who know that
1:30 am
but who were either told to keep it to themselves >> we're back on focus here. >> if i could ask a couple more questions. was there that i others type of consideration as you were considering whether the eight washington construction could have been - where the construction could have been using the puc facilities to protect the facility? >> not that i'm aware. >> next slide p.s. this is a letter from the director to you.